On February 20, 2017, Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food notified the FDA that it planned to recall all “chunk beef” products under the Evanger’s and Against the Grain brands. On February 27, 2017, the FDA became aware that Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food was notifying its distributors and retailers of a new recall for lots of Evanger’s Braised Beef Chunks with Gravy as well as expanding the previous recall for additional lots of Evanger’s canned Hunk of Beef and Against the Grain’s Grain Free Pulled Beef with Gravy.

The 12-ounce cans of dog food being recalled have the following barcodes. The numbers listed below are the second half of the barcode, which can be found on the back of the product label:

When did the FDA become aware of the consumer complaint regarding the five dogs that became ill on New Year’s?

The FDA became aware of the incident when a Washington State official referred a news article about the incident to the agency via our Safety Reporting Portal. We then contacted the owner of the five dogs in early January to get additional information regarding the initial health of her dogs and potential exposure to toxins. We worked with the owner and retailer to collect samples of the dog food and with Oregon State University to recover the gastric contents of the deceased dog and tested them through our Forensic Chemistry Center and Vet-LIRN laboratories. All of these samples tested positive for pentobarbital.

We immediately developed an inspection plan for Evanger’s production facilities and began our inspection on January 10. In the course of the inspection, we collected and tested two cans of Against the Grain canned Pulled Beef with Gravy, and these cans were also positive for pentobarbital. In review of Evanger’s records, we determined that the facility identified on a bill of lading as Evanger’s supplier of “Inedible Hand Deboned Beef” further identified as “FOR PET FOOD USE ONLY. NOT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION” does not have a grant of inspection from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service. The meat products from this supplier do not bear the USDA inspection mark and would not be considered human grade.

The FDA was unable to determine from available records whether any other Evanger’s or Against the Grain products made with beef contain any of the beef that went into the recalled products. Evanger’s is also a contract manufacturer for other companies and the FDA is working to determine if those companies received impacted product.

The inspection concluded on February 14, and our observations were presented to the company in an FDA Form 483, Inspectional Observations. These are initial observations and do not represent a final agency determination regarding Evanger’s compliance with regulations. Our investigation is ongoing, and we cannot comment about any potential actions the agency may take in this case.

During the recall process, FDA works very closely with a facility to determine whether a recall is necessary and the scope of the products to be included in the recall. We encourage facilities to initiate a voluntary recall and if necessary update the product involved in the recall as information about potentially affected products unfold.

The FDA must fully investigate – performing tests, inspections, and interviews before we have enough information to verify whether there is a public safety concern. In this case, the FDA has been conducting an investigation that involves inspections, sample collection, testing, traceback, and more. The FDA is continuing to investigate this incident and cannot speculate on possible further actions at this time.

What did the FDA Form 483s and firm inspection reports say?

The 483 issued to Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food of Wheeling, IL on February 14, 2017 is available online. The agency’s final conclusions for the inspection are not yet complete. Also available online is a 483 issued to Nutripack, LLC of Markham, IL on February 14, 2017.

What does “inedible” mean in the context of the bill of lading?

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the slaughter of animals for human consumption and provides grading and definition for various products.

Are any of Evanger’s beef suppliers inspected by USDA-FSIS?

The FDA’s preliminary assessment indicates that none of these suppliers are USDA-FSIS registered facilities.

Under which federal or state agency’s jurisdiction does this supplier fall?

The FDA regulates animal protein ingredient suppliers. These facilities may also be subject to state jurisdiction, which varies by state.

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the slaughter of animals for human consumption and provides grading and definition for various products. USDA-FSIS, not the FDA, tested the Evanger’s product for speciation.

USDA-APHIS is not involved in this investigation. USDA-APHIS provides a voluntary service to facilities that wish to export to certain countries, inspecting their facilities according to standards established by the importing country. APHIS does not have direct regulatory responsibility over pet food. The APHIS-assigned number that the supplier was using signifies export certification. However, the supplier’s export certification status is no longer active, thus the number is not valid.

Is an on-site investigation of the meat supplier in progress?

The FDA has concluded its inspection of the supplier and determined that they appear to have systems in place to ensure that euthanized animals are segregated from animal protein going for animal food use.

How many complaints has FDA received for these products?

The FDA has received ten complaints for Evanger’s products with five complaints that are suggestive of pentobarbital poisoning. These complaints relate to the Hunk of Beef product primarily, although one complaint also describes feeding an additional product, Evanger’s Braised Beef Chunks in Gravy for Dogs. FDA is following up on four complaints based on available product and veterinary medical records to obtain further information. The agency has not received similar complaints related to the suspect lots of Against the Grain Grain Free Pulled Beef with Gravy canned dog food.

Does the FDA allow the use of chemically euthanized animals in pet food? How common is this practice?

No. It is not acceptable to use animals euthanized with a chemical substance in pet or other animal foods. FDA’s understanding is that animal protein ingredient suppliers typically implement practices at their facilities to ensure that euthanized animals are either not accepted at the facility, or are segregated from animal protein going for animal food use.

The detection of pentobarbital in pet food renders the product adulterated. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the food they produce is safe for consumption and properly labeled.

Is there any acceptable level of pentobarbital in pet food?

No. There is currently no set tolerance for pentobarbital in pet food and its detection renders the product adulterated.

Who is responsible for ensuring that pet food is safe? What regulations apply in this arena?

Pet food manufacturers are responsible for taking appropriate steps to ensure that the food they produce is safe for consumption and properly labeled. One way that a manufacturer can do this is by taking steps to verify the identity and safety of the ingredients they receive from their suppliers.

It is the responsibility of the salvage facility collecting these animals to determine how they died and to separate those animals appropriately. Pentobarbital residues are not affected by rendering or canning temperatures and pressures (such as heat treatments capable of killing pathogenic organisms), and therefore animals euthanized with a chemical substance such as pentobarbital cannot be used in the manufacture of pet foods. There is currently no set tolerance for pentobarbital in pet food and detection of its presence renders the product adulterated.

In addition to these requirements, specific regulations governing the production of safe animal food already exist: Under the Food Safety Modernization Act, animal food manufacturers will be subject to a rolling implementation schedule to the Preventive Controls for Animal Foods final rule. This rule established Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements that apply to the manufacturing, processing, packing, and holding of animal food. It also requires facilities to develop and implement a food safety plan, including performing an analysis of potential hazards and determining if there are hazards requiring a preventive control. Preventive controls are intended to significantly minimize or prevent the hazards identified at the facility. If a preventive control is in place, it must be monitored by the firm and corrective action would have to be taken as needed.

FSMA compliance dates for food facilities vary according to business size. The first set of facilities are required to comply with the food safety plan provisions by September 2017. Facilities that are considered a “small business” must comply with the food safety plan provisions by September 2018. Facilities that are considered a “very small business” must comply with the food safety plan provisions by September 2019.

Large companies were required to comply with these new requirements by Sept. 19, 2016. Companies that are considered small businesses must comply by September 19, 2017 and very small businesses must comply by September 19, 2018.

What did the FDA find during its 1998 surveys of dog foods for the presence of pentobarbital?

Nineteen years ago, the FDA collected dry dog food samples to determine whether products contained pentobarbital. The sampling was not representative of the entire pet food market because the sample collectors specifically sought out dry dog foods with certain animal-derived ingredients. The sampling method and the age of the data generated by the survey means that the data cannot be used to draw inferences about dog food being produced and sold in the U.S. today.

What did the FDA find in the research paper entitled “Effect of oral administration of low doses of pentobarbital on the induction of cytochrome P450 isoforms and cytochrome P450-mediated reactions in immature Beagles”?

The objective of the paper was to determine the effect of oral administration of low doses of pentobarbital on cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms and CYP-mediated reactions in immature beagles.

In a study designed to develop an analytic method for the determination of pentobarbital residues in dog food, several lots of commercial dog food were found to contain confirmable concentrations (10 to 60 ppb) of pentobarbital. On the basis of these and other results, a limited study was initiated to assess the potential effects of low degrees of barbiturate exposure in dogs. This second study showed that ingestion of 50 micrograms of pentobarbital per day (approximately 86 ppb/kg dry kibble) did not cause induction of liver or intestinal enzymes, which are very sensitive markers of pentobarbital exposure.

Does the FDA believe that pentobarbital is commonly found in dog foods?

No. As noted in the 1998 survey, the sampling was not representative of the entire pet food market because the sample collectors specifically sought out dry dog foods with certain animal-derived ingredients. This means that the data could not be used to draw inferences about dog food being produced and sold in the U.S. then or today. The FDA has not surveyed pet foods for the presence of pentobarbital since that time. However, there is currently no set tolerance for pentobarbital in pet food and its detection renders the product adulterated (therefore, the substance should not be present in pet foods at all).

What does it mean if a sample tests negative for pentobarbital?

A negative test simply indicates that the particular sample tested was negative for pentobarbital. Due to the nature of “chunk beef” products, meat from various animals can be irregularly distributed throughout the lot of food. This means that some cans could contain meat from only one animal, while others can might contain some meat from that animal, and others none at all. If meat from a euthanized animal is used, it could end up in some cans, but not others, and in varying amounts. In a lot of hundreds or even thousands of cans of food, if even one can tests positive, we have to consider the possibility that some, but not necessarily all other cans in that lot will also test positive.

What further action is the FDA taking or considering?

The FDA is continuing to investigate this incident and cannot speculate on possible further actions at this time.

TruthaboutPetFood.com will provide some input to the above FDA information soon.

In the meantime, I thank FDA for providing pet food consumers ongoing information about this pet food investigation. Consumers deserve these types of updates, and FDA effort to provide them is appreciated.

A little feedback …… the following 2 FDA responses seem relatively “lame” for a regulatory agency that doesn’t allow euthanized animals to be included in pet food. Why would FDA allow a food-processing facility to accept euthanized animals in the first place. I would prosecute / fine any food processor that had ANY euthanized animals on their property. I certainly don’t think requiring them to simply “turn up the heat” for euthanized animals and process them in the same facility as their pet food is a very safe or effective practice for preventing chemical poisoning of pets and obviously, in this case, was neither safe nor effective.

I’m also somewhat concerned whenever a regulatory authority makes statements like “FDA’s understanding is that animal protein ingredient suppliers typically implement practices …..”. It makes me wonder if they understand their own rules and can administer appropriate enforcement actions. It sounds more like “WOW! I didn’t know you guys did that!”

The FDA has concluded its inspection of the supplier and determined that they appear to have systems in place to ensure that euthanized animals are segregated from animal protein going for animal food use.

Q2: Does the FDA allow the use of chemically euthanized animals in pet food? How common is this practice?

No. It is not acceptable to use animals euthanized with a chemical substance in pet or other animal foods. FDA’s understanding is that animal protein ingredient suppliers typically implement practices at their facilities to ensure that euthanized animals are either not accepted at the facility, or are segregated from animal protein going for animal food use.

It seems to me that the most effective preventive would be for manufacturers to purchase meat and poultry only from suppliers that ONLY run feedlots and slaughterhouses and do NOT collect already dead animals or process any carcasses by rendering. It is turning out to be difficult to find this out, as I am trying to do for the carefully selected brands I stock and recommend. I do know that one of the biggest problems has to be directly related to the meat packing industry consolidation which has taken place over the last 20 years. Only the very biggest players have been allowed to survive. I know that here in ranch country of western Colorado, it has been over 5 years since 2 very reputable ranchers, who invested in state of the art mobile slaughter facilities to avoid having to send their premium grass fed and organic cattle to the giants for processing, have had to wait for USDA approval. We have to realize that in industrial terms, and on industrial scale, the contamination we are so outraged about doesn’t matter at all. In the US it is illegal to slaughter horses, and horsemeat is suspected as having been the vector for this pentobarbital contamination. If the supplier is Canadian, it could handle horse meat, but the animal would have to be slaughtered, not euthanized. So if a euthanized horse was the source, it could have been an accident in a Canadian facility, but horses would only come to a US plant already dead. An error could not occur if meat packing plants were not legally allowed to receive dead animals, or to render them. Industrial meat has a lock on over 95% of the meat raised, slaughtered and butchered in this country, and they have no intention of surrendering any of this profitable supply chain to upstarts who care about farm animal welfare, healthy food, clean air and water, and a decent livelihood for farmers and small “artisanal” vendors trying to do things right. I care about food safety and animal welfare – both the pets my customers love, and the livestock we feed them – and I try every day to get people to upgrade out of awareness that Big Food has no other interest than its own profits. We really need to commit first to making our pets’ meals from whole food, and then we need to broaden our awareness and join the healthy food and regenerative agriculture movements, using the power of our purses and spreading information as widely as we can. I fear we cannot fix the small part of the Leviathan. It must be transformed root and branch. I suggest joining and supporting the Organic Consumers Association, as it has the most coherent and integrated approach to the whole system.

You’ve taken the time to write a thoughtful piece, which is appreciated. Because it shows you care. Furthermore, you understand a complicated business. And have access to information the average person doesn’t. As with any thought urging a reaction, I look for my “through point.” And really, most pet owners only want to feed a safe commercial PF. (Because there will come a day, when even a RAW PF company make a big mistake too).

Being “organically aware” and responsible purchasers, is important for everyone, in a generalized sense. But I don’t get the connection, as related to the Evanger’s problem. “Sourcing” is one issue. (As in, where it comes from). And “handling” is one issue. (As to it’s processing). You’ve also suggested the Industry isn’t going to be changing. Which leaves the point being made …. even more confusing.

I still don’t understand why “food” ingredients need to be “just good enough” for (or this much shy of not killing) pets. Which means it’s certainly not fit for humans. And (as Susan says so frequently) why should companion pets be a landfill waste solution anyway? Now there IS a big gap between food that’s “second quality” (not fit for retail sale) meaning ascetically unappealing. Which, if handled and stored properly, is meaningful PF material. And the opposite end of the spectrum, where expired meat is collected, and dumped, without proper storage, and never separated from packaging. So because expired meat does have potential ….then the “corrective action” would actually be to enforce appropriate safe handling regulations! If these retail merchants want their refuse taken away (or resold for profit) then it needs to be responsibly re-processed. Period!

That’s NOT my responsibility. But it IS the PF manufacturer’s, to ensure correct supply chain handling, from point A to Z !!!

I suggest “our” energy (and purchasing power) be pointed in that direction. Meaning, in order to support the manufacturers of commercial PF (like those products you want to vouch for in your store) they are going to have to back accountability up the tree! And only do business with their own responsible providers. Etc., etc.. The Evanger’s mistake was created exactly because they failed in that regard.

It is my understanding that horse slaughter is not illegal in the US. However, horses here are not raised for the intention of eating. Therefore in their lifetime they are given meds for various reasons that clearly state on the labels “not for use in horses intended for consumption”. I don’t think there’s been any testing as to the withdrawal time of various drugs.
The Evanger’s recall is not the result of horse meat anyway. It is beef. Beef is cattle. I don’t recall seeing it anywhere that horses have anything to do with the food.

That’s incorrect actually. They told us (retailers) that they suspected horse because horses are more often euthanized, cattle are generally not. They decided to test it in their independent lab results, and
told us that contrary to the USDA’s findings the results came back positive for the presence of equine DNA as well as bovine (beef),

Notice that they don’t even answer all of their own questions, but dance around the topic, like when they point the finger at the pet food company and say,”It’s YOUR fault! WE shouldn’t have to do our JOBS that we’re paid by taxpayers to do!”

According to FDA, their testing showed less than 2% horse and pig DNA in the samples which is why their report said only bovine DNA was found. They indicated that this small amount is consistent with typical cross contamination in plants that process more than one species.

My math is far too long unused to do conversions from ppb/Kg dry food to mcg and then account for wet food as opposed to dry. But could there logically be enough pentobarbital in less than a 2% contamination volume to have caused the death of a 20 pound dog? I’m thinking the amount in that can had to far exceed the 50 mcg fed in trials without adverse affect since it was fed only as a topper and split between multiple dogs. Each pug would have eaten less than 2 ounces as the owner still had some left in the open can to take along to the vet. We’re talking a couple of spoonful each.

This just doesn’t add up for me. I’m eagerly awaiting the final FDA reports.

Both laryngeal saccules are everted. The trachea contains a moderate amount of light brown fluid throughout its
entire length; this fluid is also present in the mainstem bronchi. The lungs are partially collapsed, mottled red to
pink.

3. Lung – Alveoli are diffusely dilated with eosinophilic amorphous material with increased number of
intra-alveolar macrophages (pulmonary edema). Several airways contain fragments of skeletal muscle and
brown granules mixed with basophilic bacteria (stomach contents); there is no accompanying inflammation.

If the pug didn’t die from aspiration pneumonia why are stomach contents found in the lungs and a moderate amount of brown fluid in the trachea?
You choose to simply ignore the medical facts, because they don’t support your narrative. Presence of pentobabrbital is there, but not shown or proven beyond your narratives that it had anything to do with the death. If you two are so sure, post the e-vet reports, which both of you continue to fail to mention exists, that would have been written by a neutral party who actually saw, dealt with and treated all the dogs vs your own biased stories. Their treatment notes would make it clear exactly what the medical issue was. Don’t forget, there is arsenic in apple juice and in rice, people don’t die from drinking apple juice or from eating rice.

There’s ALWAYS a few that just don’t get it Don’t waste your time on them not worth it! Glad I switch to raw 2 months ago thanks to reading your awesome info I even stopped feeding feeding kibble which I left out 24/7 Keep up your informative information so many of us appreciated it Susan!!!!

Here’s a thought, GG…..nobody dies from AIDS. They die from complications brought on by the viral infection. Yet the medical community acknowledges without doubt that AIDS is the causative factor. The death certificate may say “complications from pneumonia” but it was the virally depleted immune system that allowed the pneumonia to kill.

As to your laughable comment about naturally occurring trace toxins in food I will quote you Paracelsus: “Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either poison or remedy”.

Before you claim other’s are ignoring facts, you should perhaps refresh your knowledge about biologic functions.

Poisoned individuals often vomit. It is one of the most common symptoms as the body attempts to remove offending substances in an effort to preserve the organism. Further, as body functions begin to fail, sphincters lose their ability to contract, allowing fluids to move erratically. Add in a brachiocephalic breed and aspiration is almost unavoidable.

There are more questions than answers about this case right now.

Are we to believe that this supplier had a single contaminated carcass that went only to Evanger’s? Statistically, what are the chances of that? Inspection of the suppler suggests they have procedures in place to prevent euthanized animals from entering the pet food line. Yet the drug was undeniably found in Evanger’s food. Hmmmmm.

FDA says that other potential complaints have been filed consistent with ingestion of pentobarbital yet no other company has been asked to recall food by FDA. Hmmmmm.

Evanger’s repeatedly faults the quality of FDA’s inspection, offering ludicrous justifications. For instance, they flatly deny that there was any condensation in one sentence and then explain that condensation is to be expected due to their steam processing. It appears Evanger’s excels at double speak. Hmmmmm.

This is a complex and confusing case which is far from being explained. It is established that there was pentobarbital in the food and the pug’s stomach. Testing of closed cans sampled at the Evanger’s plant contained pentobarbital. How it got there needs to be ascertained and those responsible taken to task. Even if no dog died, it is ILLEGAL for any amount to be in pet food.

Have I missed the amount of pentobarbital found in both the owner supplied can and the ones tested by USDA labs? I have not seen numbers, only “large amounts” and “positive results” respectively. Having specific quantities would go a long way to answering some of the questions.

The stomach contains partially digested kibble along with chunks of carrots and meat mixed with black gritty particulate material. The duodenum contains a scant amount of gelatinous material that becomes mucoid distally. There is a small amount of formed feces in the descending colon.

Were other “chemicals” tested for from the stomach contents? The stomach contained a lot of things. Might they have ingested something like xylitol? It would produce the exact symptoms described by the owner in the same exact time frame or possibly was something toxic consumed earlier. Reasonable doubt?

GG – reasonable doubt was out the window when the Evanger’s unopened can tested positive for pentobarbital. You are grasping at straws trying to protect a company that in no uncertain terms is guilty of putting an adulterated product into interstate commerce.

This is the most interesting part of the whole document, in my opinion: “Does the FDA allow the use of chemically euthanized animals in pet food? How common is this practice?

No. It is not acceptable to use animals euthanized with a chemical substance in pet or other animal foods. FDA’s understanding is that animal protein ingredient suppliers typically implement practices at their facilities to ensure that euthanized animals are either not accepted at the facility, or are segregated from animal protein going for animal food use.

The detection of pentobarbital in pet food renders the product adulterated. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the food they produce is safe for consumption and properly labeled.
Is there any acceptable level of pentobarbital in pet food? No. There is currently no set tolerance for pentobarbital in pet food and its detection renders the product adulterated.”

These seem like strong words from the FDA, considering they said in 2002 that despite finding pentobarbital in almost 1/2 of the foods they tested, that “the results of the assessment led CVM to conclude that it is highly unlikely a dog consuming dry dog food will experience any adverse effects from exposures to the low levels of pentobarbital found in CVM’s dog food surveys.” and that it would not be actionable.

The FDA using this stronger language this week makes me really interested in how it will be going forward. It seems like their language would predict stronger enforcement if pentobarbital is ever found in a pet pet food, (any enforcement at all would be stronger of course), but with the anti-regulation climate of the govt, and protection of giant corporations as a top priority, will this pan out? It is interesting right now that the public now knows more about this issue, and will hopefully demand accountability going forward. I was shocked to hear Evanger’s say repeatedly that they’ve never even heard of pentobarbital before, as did another can manufacturer I spoke to. (!) I train my employees about things like this in their first month of employment – it seems awfully incredible to me that this could be true (that you’ve never heard of this risk) if you work in the pet food industry in any way. I know I’m not the only retailer that is grilling my suppliers again (we grill them a lot, but in the light of this incident, it’s time again) and seeing if they have random testing for species used and presence of pentobarbital. I hope that most retailers are putting the pressure on their suppliers, as we dictate what we carry, so I would hope it would hold weight and let them know we’re watching. I hope that the future holds more independent testing by consumer advocates – I wonder would happen if we keep funding tests like the one TAPF did once before to test for it and other contaminants – if it were found, would FDA follow through with penalties? I wonder how the big giants in pet food that rely on ingredients like Meat and Bone meal, Animal Fat, (which the FDA says are the most likely ingredients to contain it) will go forward – will they test for it occasionally themselves now? If they find it will they recall? Will FDA require occasional testing? I believe that some new regulations are in place for safety standards (and that the biggest companies were supposed to comply in 2016?) though I don’t recall the details, or what the standards are. What would the pet food companies even do with all that waste they use? It could really be a turning point for food vs. feed issues, and Susan has always pressed them on it, to enforce their own rules. What will the next AAFCO meeting hold?? Very interesting indeed….

GG doesn’t care about Evangers anymore than the pet owner affected by the situation. He’s sending up trial balloons to test for the strength (or weaknesses) of a lawsuit. Meaning which side has the stronger claim so far. And who’s going to believe what. Absent of a Jury, only an accurate and direct correlation needs to be made to satisfy a Judge, in terms of answering whether or not Evanger’s food “directly” killed the dog. If not, then the official record can never read: “a can of Evangers pet food killed a dog.” That’s the shred of doubt the company is struggling to preserve. Because in the end people will only remember …. if yes, it did, ….. or no, it was never proven!

Otherwise, here’s how this lawsuit is going to go:

EVANGERS: Your Honor, we’ve been in business for 82 years. Except for the criminal activity we’ve been accused of by the authorities, our reputation is without blemish. The proof is that we’ve never produced any product bad enough to kill a dog. We (as in ownership) were literally out to lunch one day. And the Supplier’s Truck (who we’ve known for 40 years) dumps a load rendered cattle meat for processing. Of course we always test everything. We document those test results. Unfortunately the guy responsible for all the paperwork has been fired. His general work wasn’t up to quality. So he’s gone. And, as we’ve been in the process of auditing all his record keeping, many papers were missing. We are shocked and frustrated!

SUPPLIER: Your Honor, we’ve been delivering the ingredient of beef to Evangers for 40 years. Been picking it up from the ABC Rendering Plant for over a decade. None of that material (to the best of our knowledge) has ever been bad enough to kill a pet. It would mean the end of our business if a mistake like that was made on our watch. So we’re careful to depend upon ethical rendering plants, like the “ABC Renderer” business.

ABC RENDERING PLANT: We contract with Ranchers and facilities to process expired livestock. All the people we do business with “swear” their meat has expired naturally. While it’s not suitable for human consumption of course., it’s certainly “good enough” for pet food. And it’s never been reported back to us, that the material from our plant has actually killed a pet! I can give you the names of the Ranchers we do business with on a regular basis. And they’ll vouch for our understanding of these transactions.

RANCHER #1 (of 9 more like them): Your Honor, me and my dad (being in the business for decades) have sent all our expired cattle to the ABC Rendering plant for as long as we can remember! None of our cattle has ever been euthanized. If we can’t get it to the stockyards, then it just dies right out there in the pasture. But if we DO have an animal on the property, requiring euthanasia, then our Large Animal Vet, Doc Patterson, is the best in the business. The man knows what he’s doing! And he hasn’t (to the best of our knowledge) ever injected the wrong animal on our property.

DOC PATTERSON: Your Honor, that’s exactly correct. If I made a mistake like that (injecting the wrong animal), I could lose my license! So there’s a report for every case I handle. Cattle aren’t euthanized, because they just die of old age or because they’re sick. Or in rare cases they get stunned. It’s just too expensive to use this drug on livestock. Occasionally a horse will be “downed” if required. But there’s never been a problem disposing of a horse carcass versus cattle carcasses, geez, just for as long as I can remember.

Has anyone been able to confirm or debunk the list of all pet food brands manufactured at Evanger’s plants? I’ve seen reports of these in several forums: Addiction US, Au Jus, Canidae, Canine Caviar, Dave’s, Great Life, Holistic Select, Party Animal/Cocoliscious, Weruva Kobe, Wild Calling, Wysong…